* Jutta Wrage wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > Am 18.06.2005 um 16:09 schrieb Thierry Reding: > > >What would be the simplest tool in this case? > > > > SVN, I think, as it has the advantage over CVS not needing a special > port and working over http. The same goes for Arch. Arch does not need a special port either. > >>If every women/member wanted to put an own version on different > >>servers, bazaar might be the right tool. > > > >Again, I don't really see how using Arch would differ from using > >CVS or SVN > >if this were the goal. > > I do not know, if here is the right place to discuss the differences > between distributed and centralized archives (last ones are used for > nearly all the large centralized projects, where many people are > working on). > > - - DW needs one version of the website only and a consistent one. DW has one consistent version of the website only. That version is at: http://arch.debian.org/arch/women/website Everyone can check out that version using the following two commands: $ baz register-archive http://arch.debian.org/arch/women/website [or if you have write access] $ baz register-archive sftp://username@arch.debian.org/arch/women/website $ baz get women-website@lists.alioth.debian.org/website--trunk--0.1 Now, you may see that differently, but in my opinion that is not more difficult than doing the same in CVS or SVN. > - - the first makes it necessary to build the pages from one > centralized repository instead of decentralized repositories that may > differ from each other. While it is true that Arch can be, and often is, used for distributed development, this does not apply to the DW website. There is only one repository, and every change that is committed goes into that repository. [...] > Please have a look on the page telling how to work with www.d.o cvs, > and see how much simplier it si to get a working copy: The very first > steps on http://www.nl.debian.org/devel/website/using_cvs are to be > done only once. > From what I have read about baz which was not available for debian > woody, things are much more complicated. When using CVS first time > years ago I just followed about 10 lines of instructions and have had > a work version on my machine to build wine myself and trying patches. Once you've checked out the sources using the two commands shown above, you can just change into the new directory and never have to worry about these two steps again. From that point on, it is really very much like other RCSs. What you do is: $ baz update to update your working copy, just like you would do with CVS. You then go on with editing whatever you feel like. Then use $ baz diff to (optionally) revise your changes and finally $ baz commit to check in your changes if you have write access. If you do not have write access, you can redirect the `baz diff' output to any file and send that in as a patch. In case you need to add files, you can use: $ baz add <filename> which is the exact same command as you would use in CVS. That is a total of 5 (6) commands, which is not more than what you have to memorize for CVS. > Distributed and centralized repositories work different from each > other and have a different purposes. May that be as it is, the DW website is a centralized repository. > If I am wrong, maybe, all those people using CVS and SVN for good > reasons are wrong, too? My point is not to criticize other people for using CVS and SVN. I'm simply trying to provide arguments in favour of Arch not being the wrong RCS to use for the DW website. Cheers, Thierry
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature